Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I join with others in welcoming Ms Fahey and Ms Feely. Their organisations have done important work. I particularly welcome the fact that both of them have not simply engaged with our committee but have also looked to the wider question of what we value in society and how we shape our priorities.

There are specific areas on which I would like to hear more discussion. In Age Action's presentation, Ms Feely spoke about seeking an increase in the old age pension. I presume she is also seeking that increase in the reduced rate pension. I would like Ms Feely to comment specifically on that. As we know, only 16% of those in receipt of the full contributory pension are women. Ireland has a 37% gender pension gap. I know Age Action has examined that matter and so I would like to hear Ms Feely's thoughts on the gender pension gap.

We rightly talked about lone parents, but when one changes conditionalities or thresholds, it is a cut or loss in income. It means there is a real lack of an income they previously had. We have seen an invisible cut of that kind, with a change of conditionality in pensions. The change in thresholds for qualifying for reduced rate pensions has effectively meant a major loss of income for many older women. I would like to hear Ms Feely's comments on that. The committee would like to examine the gender pension gap, so the witnesses might like to suggest how we could press forward in that respect.

As regards proposals for home care, the submission contained detailed costings, including just over €78 million to bring us to a point of adequacy for home care hours. I can think of few things that represent such a crucial and strategic investment, more value for money, or that are more deeply necessary than bringing our home care up to an adequate standard.

It of course also delivers savings in the long term by allowing people to live with dignity in their own homes for far longer. In addition to such necessary investment in home care, what are Ms Feely's thoughts on the idea of home care as a statutory entitlement, in line with the existing statutory entitlement for residential care, because I believe it may be necessary to consider this area? I also welcome the joined-up approach highlighted by Age Action Ireland. In that regard, Ms Feely mentioned Departments and I note Age Action Ireland is talking to other Departments as well as to this joint committee. What does Ms Feely believe to be the current status of the national positive ageing strategy? That was a strategy to which more than 1,000 older people gave of their time and energy. I believe it was one of the most comprehensive consultations we ever have had and it has extended over two Governments. It is a good strategy but its implementation is not evident. Does Ms Feely believe re-engaging with the positive ageing strategy potentially could be a way to get some of that joined-up momentum she highlighted? Others have spoken on fuel and as was mentioned, the Chairman also has interesting proposals in that regard. I welcome that both the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Age Action Ireland have detailed and quite innovative and creative proposals on how to engage both with the payment thresholds and more innovative approaches to ensuring value and security for older people with regard to fuel.

Turning to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, I congratulate it on the work it has done while recognising, as Senator Ardagh noted, it should not be obliged to step into the breach in many of the ways it has. However, pulling back to the wider policy focus is important and it is particularly laudable that the society points to the key contradiction regarding the decision that must be made, which is that investment must be chosen over tax cuts. In the context of some recent media discussion on the need for tax cuts for those on higher incomes, members must consider some of the testimonials given today. How could they, in conscience, stand over any cuts to those on the higher third of incomes when people literally are making choices between the basic essentials of life? We absolutely must look to investment over tax cuts and I welcome the society's framing of the issue in that way because this is the decision that must be placed at the centre and the priority that must be made. Ms Fahey focused on and discussed income adequacy and before turning to the issue of lone parents, I note the society's sister organisation, the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice, has done interesting work on minimum essential standards of living. It would be useful to hear some of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul's thoughts on how it thinks constructive engagement with those minimum essential standards of living could be useful. This could be in respect of the adequacy of payments but also perhaps with regard to income adequacy in other areas such as employment.

I compliment the Society of St. Vincent de Paul because it has given a strong and consistent focus over the past two to three years to the question of lone parents. It has been highlighted and rings an alarm bell. I must state that if we are to look at equality or gender-proofing of the budgetary process with any seriousness, addressing the issues faced by lone parents and the impact of poor policy decisions must be central. Deputy O'Dea compared the current mess with Alice's Adventures in Wonderlandbut due to my affection for that book, I will use another analogy. It is a patchwork and a maze which people and families are trying to put together on a week by week basis. The real cuts and the real loss in income people have experienced because of the changes in conditionality are pushing people into hardship. Ms Fahey described this in her testimonial and there are clear examples of hard choices between food and heating or between taking a bus to town and going to visit a doctor. People are being asked to take different basic decisions, particularly those who are in receipt of the jobseeker's transitional payment or who have been pushed on to jobseeker's allowance. Such hard choices then are echoed by the hard choices they must make between the patchwork of facilities available to them. For example, I refer to the choice between the back-to-education allowance and the SUSI grant and the question - because of the rent supplement being there - as to whether a person will take a risk on rent supplement to access better supports for him or her when going back into college.

Will that person take that gamble? We are asking people whose deprivation levels are such that they are already making hard choices to go without the essentials of life to make another set of hard choices. These are the people who are seeking to go back into education and to train. We should try to fix these anomalies. We need an overall review of policy on lone parents. We need to consider the substantially failed policy. There are also very concrete cuts to income disregard which is a cash loss for parents. That has been slightly but not fully restored.

I am particularly interested in the proposal on the jobseeker's transitional and the family income supplement because it would address some of the cases we have heard recently. Why do the witnesses think it would be beneficial? I have raised it with the Minister and the Department. There seems to be a block. They regard it almost as a double payment but it is not. We want to keep an indicator within the system in order that somebody who manages to get a job is recognised as facing particular challenges in parenting alone with a child between the ages of seven and 14. The invisibility of those parents' experience and the challenges they face has galled many women and many lone parents. It is a way of ensuring the visibility of this group and the challenges and alarming levels of deprivation it faces. I would like the witnesses to elaborate on that proposal because it is very timely and could be pushed forward in the short term.